709 RIDE??? insight please!!

[bigbenno]

Has anyone ever had to take a 709 ride with the feds?

If so can you give me some insight on what it was like and what they were looking for exactly?

Thanks a million!!!

 

[nosehair]

A 709 ride is initiated after some action you did that causes your proficiency as an airman or instructor to be in question. Whatever you did wrong is what they are looking for.

 

[minitour]

Is a 709 one of those things that you have no chance to "pass", or are they actually "fair" about it?

-mini

 

[taters]

They are pretty fair as long as you demonstrate profiency in what ever is in question..how ever be advised that you put your rating on the table when you take one...if you show a continuation in lack of ability you will lose the rating(s). I had a cfi who is now w/pinncle have to take on when he flipped his chief (tailwheel)..The FE on the 709 ride tried to demostrate the manevuer for a three-point landing and ground looped the plane. There was no damage , my cfi showed the FE how to land a chief , and he got his PPL(tailwheel) handed back to him.

 

[Captain Overs]

Be prepared. It's possible you can leave the ride without even your private. If you do something they don't like they can make you do the next lever ride as well.

 

[Hung Start]

Attitude! Attitude! Attitude!!!!!!


Yours, not the aircraft!

 

[Flymach2]

I'm curious if anyone could give some insight on how the Feds will judge someone's aeronautical decision making process. Background on the scenario is this:

Private pilot airplane, multi rated on a cross country flight in a PA-44. Approximately 50 miles from the destination, the left engine quits. An emergency is declared by the pilot and he is advised by ATC that there is an airport 2 miles behind where he could return. The pilot declines and indicates that he will continue. Luckily, he made the destination and asked the fuelers to add 25 gallons per side. The fueler looks in the tanks before adding anything and notices that something looks strange. For some reason, the fueler contacts the FAA, (which has an office on the field), and an inspector comes out to look as well. The inspector instructs the fueler to fill both tanks. The airplane took 107 gallons total. It holds 108 total usable. The left tank was bone dry and there was only 1 gallon remaining in the right tank. The pilot said he didn't even check the quantity because the fuel stick was missing and just went by what was indicated by the gauges. I just saw this guy the other day and he is still flying. I couldn't believe it. I heard he has to take a 709 ride, but I'm wondering how the FAA will be able to determine this guys thinking process.

Regards

 

[Tram]

Has anyone ever had to take a 709 ride with the feds?

If so can you give me some insight on what it was like and what they were looking for exactly?

Thanks a million!!!

They didn't teach you that at Riddle?

BTW.. Is that Nicole Whitehead in you avatar?

 

[JediNein]

The inspector instructs the fueler to fill both tanks. The airplane took 107 gallons total.

I'm quite curious as to how this inspector got the right to fill the tanks and who paid for the gas. If it was owner permission that's one thing, but without it, that just seems wrong.

The 709 process for one pilot started with a complete review of the airworthiness of the airplane. The operations inspector caught improper wording on a maintenance log entry and would have ended the ride right there except for the immediate corrective action by the mechanic. The TSO tags on the seat belts were checked, along with every single placard on board (this AFTER an FAA Airworthiness Inspection).

The oral portion then continued into the PTS, Task A. #1 and proceeded right down the list. The pilot had a cross country that he'd planned before the ride and the questions were based on the preflight planning that he'd done.

Two hours later, they were deep into airspace when the pilot drew a blank. Game over.

The failure was genuine, the pilot should have, but didn't, spent some time studying the AIM before taking the ride. Sixty days went by without the pilot being able to devote time to study, so he surrendered all of his certificates in lieu of having them revoked. When he gets time to study, he'll start over.

I know of another pilot, a flight instructor, hit the books, got a similar grilling, and made it through just fine. He is now a Captain at some regional.

Does the guy that took the shortcut feel lucky? Or is he going to buckle down and study?

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

 

[English]

I know a guy who had a 709 ride due to two prop strikes and a self-induced emergency landing (forgot to turn on the alternator - doh!). All three of these incidents happened in the same year.

He passed.

If this guy passed, they'll pass anyone.

 

[EatSleepFly]

If this guy passed, they'll pass anyone.

You mean that inspector will pass anyone.

With the inconsistency between FSDO's and even individual inspectors, I wouldn't bet my certificates on a hopefully pain-free 709 ride.

 

[Flymach2]

I don't know, Bridgette. But I do get the feeling this guy thinks he's getting away with something. He seems to be acting like he did nothing wrong. I have a big problem with sharing the skies with someone like this. I'll follow the details and let you know. Thanks for the comments.

Regards

 

[transpondersoff]

The problem with FLYMACH2's example is that the pilot should have made a 180 and go direct to the airport ATC pointed out. I have read in AOPA's magazine where a pilot did something similar and was cited with wreckless endangerment for not going to the first nearest suitable field when an emergency arose.

Both pilots did the same thing and the FAA didn't like the way it was handled. Most pilots think that when an emergency arises, they can chose where to go when something goes wrong. The FAA's position on this is if you declare an emergency, you must land at the first nearest suitable airport, not one where maintenance is available or your comfort. They will understand if you overfly a 1800 foot grass strip at night, but don't overfly a 3500' airport with no maintenance to get to the 7000' foot airport with maintenance.

A good example of chosing to continue as opposed to landing at the nearest suitable airport is the Air Alaska accident in California. Had the crew chose to land earlier instead of experimenting, it may have been a different outcome.

 

[slatsnfive]

I thought it was called a 609 ride, or is that something different?

 

[transpondersoff]

I think a 609 ride is for CFI's who have had numerous sudent failures. The FAA will give you this ride to reevaluate you as a CFI. I could be wrong about the number but it sure sounds right.